[IPAC-List] Use of integrity assessments in public sector

[Patrick McCoy]

Interesting discussion.
 
I think most of us would agree that conscientiousness, honesty,
integrity, and a host of similar constructs are clearly important in
most employment contexts, whether in the private or public sector.
 
For me, the question is whether the best we can do is to rely on
self-report type tools that rely on the persons's integrity,
honesty,etc.  People who have never cheated at something, at some time,
are rather rare in my humble opinion.  Same goes for people who have
never lied,etc.
 
Should an honest respondent be penalized for indicating on an
instrument they cheated at some point in time, perhaps in their
childhood? If the answer is no, one probably needs to be careful that
the assessment tool to be used does not, in fact, penalize such an
individual.  If a forced-choice approach is used to help reduce the
likelihood that the respondent will just pick the desirable option, I
guess we must ask ourselves does the approach really work.  It may not,
especially in contexts where the approach may need to be disclosed in a
recourse situation.
 
Are there other approaches to assessing the construct(s) that might be
expected, a priori, to work better?
 
Hope you had a great holiday season!
 
Pat McCoy
in Ottawa, Canada
 
 
 
 

>>> "Mark Hammer" <Mark.Hammer at psc-cfp.gc.ca> 2014/01/05 5:02 PM >>>

As one can see below, Reid's original question was not with respect to
the validity of integrity tests in general - I think we can all envision
contexts where they would be the perfect supplement to other validtests,
given the nature of the position - but the specific use of such tests in
the public sector.

"Public sector" includes two general uses: for external recruitment
into the PS, and for competitions/promotions within the PS.  As I
commented earlier, without articulating that I was thinking in terms of
internal competitions, any tests used, no matter what their validity
might be, will often have results available publicly, whether posted
automatically (to show who made the short list), or upon request (e.g.,
an appeal that inquires into "why I didn't make the cut and those guys
did").  And under those conditions, Harry's "smoove move" of using a
term/construct that does not brand a person quite so negatively, is on
the money, as far as I'm concerned.  Of course, once one is within any
public-sector organization, the assumption is that you pass muster, with
respect to integrity, if you are applying for a promotion or other
position, and have not been in trouble as of yet; your "good egg" credit
subs for a test.

I don't know about everybody else's public sector context, but in ours
there is a security check, and working is contingent on obtaining that
security clearance.  If you come from outside, they do a check, and if
you're coming from inside and already have that security level, you get
credit for that.  That clearance may be relatively basic for a great
many positions, but it is there.  What sort of distinguishes private
sector and public sector employers is that many private-sector employers
may have the resources to spring for integrity testing, but not have
either the resources or legal authority to engage in the sort of
thorough security check that public-sector employers can.  My employers
can have the RCMP run a check on you.  I don't know what Krogers or
Target has the legal clout to do.

So, for me, the question that arises is how much any integrity testing
is largely reduncant with the one-two-punch of a security check and a
structured reference check.  I will grant you that use of even both of
these is not necessarily exactly the same as either testing for
integrity or conscientiousness.  But I suspect that, as Reid notes,
unless we are looking specifically at public safety officers, or any
other postions of trust where a security check is considered to not
capture the entire construct space of interest, you won't see integrity
tests used all that often.

Of course, a member of the public would likely look at the nature of
employment in each sector - "at will" in the private, and ultra-secure
in the public - and scrunch their face up, muttering "Wait, you're going
to hire him/her for conceivably 30 years, and you're not even going to
test for that, yet that other employer is going to put a checkout
cashier through those hoops, even though they could fire them at a
moment's notice?".  That individual is looking at it from the low/high
stakes angle, where at-will employment implies the ethical/integrity bar
can be a little lower, since mistakes can be corrected by termination.

Mark


>>> Reid Klion 01/02/14 5:44 PM >>>


Happy 2014 to all!

I am curious about the group?s thoughts about a question that was
recently posed by a colleague regarding the use of integrity tests in
the public sector. Integrity tests are used fairly broadly in the
private sector for individuals applying for ?positions of trust.?
However, neither of us were aware of their usage in the public sector
(setting aside the use of psychological assessments for the selection of
public safety officers which uses a different set of assessments much
broader in scope ).  Anyone have any thoughts or anecdata? Thanks-

Reid




> 

This e-mail message is intended for the named recipient(s) and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or
re-transmission is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient or not
authorized by the named recipient(s), or if you have received this
e-mail in error, then please notify the sender immediately and delete
the message and any copies. 

> 

Ce courriel est destiné exclusivement au destinataire mentionné en
titre et peut contenir de l'information privilégiée, confidentielle ou
soustraite à la communication aux termes des lois applicables. Toute
divulgation non autorisée, toute reproduction ou réacheminement est
interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce courriel, ou n'êtes
pas autorisé par le destinataire visé, ou encore, si vous l'avez reçu
par erreur, veuillez le mentionner immédiatement à l'expéditeur et
supprimer le courriel et les copies. 


>

This e-mail message is intended for the named recipient(s) and may
contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure, copying or
re-transmission is prohibited. If you are not a named recipient or not
authorized by the named recipient(s), or if you have received this
e-mail in error, then please notify the sender immediately and delete
the message and any copies.
 >
Ce courriel est destiné exclusivement au destinataire mentionné en titre
et peut contenir de l'information privilégiée, confidentielle ou
soustraite à la communication aux termes des lois applicables. Toute
divulgation non autorisée, toute reproduction ou réacheminement est
interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce courriel, ou n'êtes
pas autorisé par le destinataire visé, ou encore, si vous l'avez reçu
par erreur, veuillez le mentionner immédiatement à l'expéditeur et
supprimer le courriel et les copies.      

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://nine.pairlist.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20140107/3af1c4a9/attachment.htm